KARAMCHARI/ADHIKARI VETAN BHOGI SEHKARI RIN SAMITI (BHEL) (HEEP), BHEL, RANIPUR Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LTD
LAWS(UTN)-2012-12-97
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on December 19,2012

Karamchari/Adhikari Vetan Bhogi Sehkari Rin Samiti (Bhel) (Heep), Bhel, Ranipur Appellant
VERSUS
Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
(2.) THE petitioner is a cooperative society of the workers of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (from hereinafter referred to as BHEL) at Haridwar. All the members of the said cooperative society i.e. the petitioner are workers in BHEL. Many of the members of the society have taken a loan from the cooperative society and have defaulted. The petitioner has relied upon Section 40 of the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (from hereinafter referred to as the "Act") read with Rule 215 of the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004 (from hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). It is further stated that these provisions are pari materia to the earlier law applicable in the State of Uttarakhand i.e. Section 40 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 read with Rule 197 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that many of its members who are employees of BHEL have committed a default in the repayment of loan and since it is a society which runs on the contribution of its member, the society has no means for recovery of the said amount. However, the BHEL is not cooperating in the matter and although as per the provision under section 40 of the Act read with Rule 215 of the Rules, in the present eventuality where a person has committed default, it is binding on the employer i.e. BHEL to deduct the said amount from the salary of its member and to remit back to the cooperative society i.e. the petitioner, yet they have failed to do so inspite of the repeated reminders. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for BHEL Mr. V.K. Kohli, on the other hand, submits that BHEL is an instrumentality of the State and both the Act as well as the Rules are applicable in its case, as the member of the said society are its employees, but there is a difficulty with the BHEL to deduct the said amount and remit to the cooperative society for the reason that the agreement executed by the members of the petitioner society were not forwarded to BHEL and no approval of the authority of BHEL was taken before sanctioning the loan. Moreover, under Rule 215 of the Rules it was the bounden duty of the society to send the copy of the agreement executed by the member to the BHEL which has not been done.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.